There appears to be a Copyright violation in the above. The posting editor, who identifies himself on his User page as Ilan Vardi, is making reference, in the Notes of the article, in which he posted an annotated type-reset version of the 1958 Ph.D. Thesis of Paul J. Cohen. I believe the Copyright is owned by the University of Chicago, where Paul Cohen got his Ph.D. Ilan Vardi appears as User:Ilanpi at Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The above is an important distinction in Mathematics for which Wikipedia has no article. The distinction is used in discussing uniform continuity, for example. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There should be a mathematics article titled "Global versus local," since these concepts are used as a pair in making a mathematical distinction. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is related to the notion of "local property," as opposed to a global property." Although Wikipedia has an article for the former, it appears to ignore totally the latter. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lvives sm.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lvives sm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.

How the article degenerated to open with "The Times (1921)" instead of the correct facts of the "Morning Post (1920)" is probably due to my banishment to Siberia. Is there anyone who'll correct this error in my absence? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true that an expose was published by The Times in 1921. But it was already exposed as a sham in 1920 by the work of the American Jewish Committee. My reference to the above involves the dissemination of this hoax in 1920 by the Morning Post which resulted in the compilation of the article that were subsequently published as the Cause of World Unrest. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting & useful reference for him if someone wishes to start a "stub" on him: Stronger Than a Hundred Men: A History of the Vertical Water Wheel, by Terry S. Reynolds. Google has the book on the Web here: [2]. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And here's another reference on Muller: Building structures: from concepts to design by Malcolm Millais. Google books has the relevant page online here: [3] --Ludvikus (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent editions of David Hilbert's classic, The Foundations of Geometry, dropped the adjective straight preceding the primitive term line. But that's overlooked in the Wikipedia article above. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Townsend, E. J. (Edgar Jerome), 1864-1955, was an influential American mathematician during the formative years - regarding the development of mathematics in the United States. But there's no entry on him at Wikipedia. For example, it is his translation of David Hilbert's Foundations of Geometry and it's publication in 1902, which made Hilbert's work on Geometry available to only-English speaking scholars. The Library of Congress owns seven (7) of his books. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC) His 1915 monograph, Functions of a Complex Variables, is available online here: [9]. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

One step forward ...

In a section above called "Straight" you wrote: "And if I say that (1) It's not true that I'm "utterly incompetent" or that (2) I lack "interpersonal-skills" than I'm not admitting my mistake(s), right? Oh - and now I'm Wikilawyering."

Ludvikus "Admitting my mistakes" is perhaps not the most suitable wording to use because it is confrontational. A better way of phrasing it would be "to review my conduct for the reasons that I am indefinitely blocked, so that I can modify my behaviour and work constructively with other editors". But to date you have not shown any indication that you have understood why you have had this block placed upon you. This does not mean you have to admit to mistakes, just that you have analyse the reason for your block and know what you need to do not to be blocked in future. You are still externalising it as "this something they have done to me", and not internalising it: "how should I modify my behaviour so that I can start to edit Wikipedia again".

Blocks are not handed out as a punishment. They are used by the community to protect the community and to indicate that certain behaviour is considered unacceptable and to give the editor a chance to consider his/her behaviour and modify it so that (s)he can be unblocked and work constructively with other editors. BTW an editor does not have to agree that the behavioural norms are "good", just that they know what they are and agree to abide by them if they want to edit Wikiepedia.

The sections User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 9#Restriction and User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 9#Some sugestions give you some clear indication of why you were reblocked after your last block was lifted. For example you said as part of your unblocking request "I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor." Yet that is not what you did.

It seems yards of text was taken up in conversations with you on talk pages because you just did not read what others wrote, -- the repeating by you of a 4 article ban, and me telling you that was not so and to read what I had written, is a good example of this problem. I hope that on re-reading these two sections you will be able to see this problem through this specific issue.

If you had followed the advise I gave you in User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 9#Some sugestions, then the chances are that you would still be editing today. But instead of taking the sprite of that advise, (which I explained in some detail in that section see the paragraphs that start:

"The only imposed restriction..."

"The reason I did not just reimpose the block..."

"There are millions of articles to work on..."

) with a good grace, if was obvious to me that we had real problems when you came back with these answers: "(3 Choose) By other area, you mean an area in which I'm not Restricted, right?" and "But your suggestion, obviously offered in good faith, is unnecessary - I have no need external inspirations regarding topics for me to write on." which indicated to me that you had completely missed the spirit of what I was trying to get over to you.

If with hindsight you really can not see any fundemental change you would make in your immediate written responses to my suggestions, the articles you subsequently chose to repeatedly edit, and the methods you used to interact with other editors, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. You should not even bother to ask for an unblock but go and work on a different project.

If on the other hand you can read the archives and the relevant ANIs (also monitor the WP:ANI page for time and see the sorts of things others do to get a block) and start to see the pattern in your interactions with other editors that caused you to be taken to ANI and re-blocked, become aware of how to avoid it in future and make some positive suggestions on how you will police yourself -- obviously a statement like "I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor." is not going to be sufficient -- then an unblock request might stand a chance of success.

You are going to have to show in detail to the unblocking administrator that you understand what it was that got you blocked, and what postive steps you are going to take to prevent yourself being taken to an ANI in the future. Notice that you do not have to show contrition, you only have to show the unblocking administrator that you can work within the self imposed restrictions that you set yourself. If an unblocking administrator thinks that those self imposed restrictions will allow you to work constructively on Wikipedia articles within the policies and guidelines of Wikiepdia including the behavioural polices and guidelines, then your request to be unblocked may well be granted. -- PBS (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That was really great advice you gave me - it is so true regarding Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I did not know how to apply it in the case in which my Wikipedia activities were being reviewed by the Administrator who discussed "holding a gun to my head." He pissed me off by that provocation, I responded, and he Blocked me. My last Block, however, involved an extremely offensive editor who engaged in personal attacks on the Talk page of an article I edited. As it turns out, even defensiveness is merely "digging a hole" at times. And in retrospect, I should have let that editor continue his "ownership" of the article.

Unfortunately, once an editor, such as myself, gets into a "hole" it's extremely difficult to get out AGAIN. Having a record like mine means that it's extremely easy to get me Blocked.

Obviously, I was mistaken when I thought that I knew 100% how to avoid getting Blocked.

In your case, I know you are (1) an Administrator, (2) an editor of the Historical Revisionism related articles. And you had me Blocked for my editing of those articles. I did not intentionally violate any rules regarding those articles, but I got you very upset by what I had done. So you Blocked me. And that Block created a Stigma against me as an editor. It is this Stigma which caused me to be Blocked permanently from an article in which I had confronted an editor who was violating rules of civility. Had your "probation" not been in place, I may have not been blocked. At the same time, I should not have participated in the long discussions about my contemplated Block. That discussion itself - as you must know - became a reason to block me.

Now I should STOP - because responding to your observations above further, or even more fully, would violate your excellent advice: It is you who (with the assistance of Wikipedian others) who dumped me in a "hole" (you are aware of that, I hope), and to continue this response merely consists of digging myself deeper into the "hole" in which you and your colleagues have placed me. So, you see, I do understand why I'm Blocked. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Two steps back ...?"

User:Philip Baird Shearer, since you're one of my Blockers, I can assure you that I'm aware of how to avoid being blocked by you. You've expressed it cleary that you have a concern over my editing of Historical revisionism, and its related articles. Therefore, all I have to do is be extremely cautious if I were to approach those article with any contribution. I would have to be particularly adept at hearing and listening what you have to say about their content, and not make the slightest move of which you disapprove. If I do that - you will not have a cause to Block me. Regarding User:Loremaster, who's concerned with the articles related to Conspiracy theory, I would need to do even more. I would have to ignore any thing he writes which I might construe as a "personal attack." However, even that's not enough. I know that I have an extremely poor Wikipedia record as a "disruptor." It is impossible to erase this record. That means that I'm many times more likely of being Blocked again. So, therefore, my behavior must be even more "Wikipedia good behavior" than that of the average Wikipedia editor. In other words, I must be extremely cautious and really avoid any confrontations even such which I think are disruptive by another. I must generally let anyone win any argument at Wikipedia. Because any kind of disagreement may, much more easily, be construed as "disruption," even if it's not really. Doesn't that demonstrate that I've learned my lesson? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It was because of a disputes with the above editor that I'm now permanently blocked. Nevertheless, my recommendations have been adopted at the New World Order article. For example, as an illustration, the back of the beautiful image of the Great Seal of the United States now adorns said article. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If I had been meticulous about caring whether I would be Blocked, I would have let this editor win the battle over his ownership of said article. In retrospect, and hindsight, I should have ignored the insulting language used by him on the Talk page of said article. But I persisted in my quest for "truth, justice, and the American way." The consequence was that the colleague administrator - by the name of Arthur - recommended that I be Blocked (for "disruption" of course). That gave you the opportunity to support my Block in order to protect your ownership of the historical revisionism articles. Now if I were to be re-instate, I would know that I must be extremely cautious in regard to those articles. So I do know what I must do to avoid being Blocked for Disruption. I have to listen to you guys, and not annoy or disagree with you, because you guys are extremely powerful at Wikipedia. If I were to cause you to spend too much energy responding to my editing or posting, you would join forces to get me Blocked. That's the reality of Wikipedia: Conformity to the views of Administrators and the Editors who they support. That's the way it is. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist known for never letting the political elite forget their job is to represent taxpayers.
He started his career with The New York Times as a housing reporter and then City Hall bureau chief.
He was the editorial page editor at the Daily News, where he directed a series of reports on the Apollo Theater that won the Pulitzer.
A series documenting abuse of farmworkers earned the board the Polk Award.
In 2000, he was named executive editor of the News and returned to column writing in 2004.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot do any of that - I'm currently blocked indefinitely. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - vi. (1920).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

This is just the "Table of Contents" of the book published in 1920 in the United States (public domain - copyright expired). --Ludvikus (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for unblock

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I understand what "disruption" means now. If I'm unblocked, I intend to contact an experienced editor, or administrator, if I have any issue I'm concerned about to avoid any confrontations. I understand that I need to be extremely careful because with my record it's very, very, easy to get me Blocked again. At the moment, I'm interested in responding to the two image deletion questions raised by the editor immediately above.

Decline reason:

I've read what you had to say above at User_talk:Ludvikus#One_step_forward_.... This does not suggest to me that your attitude has changed. You are not happy with the words and actions of PBS, who is one of the admins who has blocked you in the past. The advice he gave you above is very typical mainstream advice on how to avoid problems on Wikipedia. If you would truly respond to his suggestions, my thinking might be different. Your general promise to be more careful doesn't outweigh a lengthy block log. In the past, you were blocked for as long as six months. If being more careful is something you could easily do, you would have done so by now. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(1) I was Blocked because of a controversy involving User:Loremaster concerning my defending against "personal attacks" on the Talk page about New World Order. I should not have responded to the Personal Attacks there by User:Loremaster. That's because - as I now know - I have a record that can be used against me as a "disruptor." Therefore, i really should have ignored that. Even a defensive response on a Talk page can be construed as disruption. I understand now that, with my record, I must permit most editors, especially established editors, and administrators "win" their arguments. That was my mistake. I believed that by defending against User:Loremaster's personal attacks I could not possibly be Blocked. Obviously, I was mistaken. (2) Regarding Administrator PBS, he was NOT my Blocking administrator. He had caused me to be Restricted from editing a handful of article related to "historical revisionism." I did not violated that Restriction which he imposed. Neither do I intend to do that in the future. I'm fully aware of the concerns PBS has regarding those articles. I therefore would contact him on his Talk page before I make any significant contribution to those handful of articles. At the moment, I do not have an interest in them anyway. It is important to understand that PBS had nothing to do with this current Block involving User:Loremaster. Furthermore, the "advice" that PBS is giving me here is general, and totally unresponsive to the cause of my actual current Block because it does not deal with what had happened between User:Loremaster and myself regarding the "New World Order" article. Again, I did not violate any of the Restrictions which PBS had imposed on me related to the New World Order family of articles. Therefore, the advice given by PBS is not helpful to my understanding as to how I am to avoid causing a "disruption" when I believe an editor, such as User:Loremaster is engaged in personal attacks. It would have been extremely useful to me, and therefore, to Wikipedia, if PBS had specifically addressed the last cause of my current indefinite Blockage. But he does not do so in the above. Non of his references deal specifically with my problem regarding my confrontation with just one working editor at "New World Order," namely User:Loremaster. Therefore, the only way I can reasonably, and rationally, avoid any future "disruptions," is being extremely careful if, or when, I deal with anything related to these two editors in the future, should I ever be unblocked. Again, I'm Blocked for "disruption." But no one has taken the trouble to explain exactly how I had been disruptive. In fact, to the best of my recollection, I over-reacted to an Administrator who wrote about "holding a gun to my head." I should have ignored that. By responding to that set of words, the actual Blocking administrator, with the support of his colleague, decided to use that as the cause of an immediate indefinite Block. That was a mistake I made (I see that now in hindsight). Rather, I should have done what User:Loremaster had done - take a relatively long break from Wikipedia, and let everyone else discuss my Blockage. That was another mistake on my part. I engaged in what is known as "Wikilawyering" at Wikipedia - another "no no." In the future, I'll not bother with that either - it obviously doesn't work, but merely creates another opportunity, or reason, for being Block. So, there, you can obviously see that I have learned much - especially how to avoid being Blocked for "disruption." *PS: Correction: PBS, I believe, supported my Blockage, I believe. To that extent, he did have a hand in my being Blocked indefinitely. However, I dis not violate his Restrictions he had imposed. So my controversy with him is unrelated to my current Block - but I'm quite sure he thinks otherwise, and maintains that both are instances of my disruption. How so, I do not understand. But that does not matter - because I intend to listen to him carefully in the future if I'm un-blocked, & he chooses to communicate with me, so that there would be no "disruption."

Decline reason:

First of all, I would advise you to review WP:TL;DR. Wading through a wall of text makes it hard for a reviewing admin to understand your request. Secondly, after I did wade through your request, it's clear that you are blaming everyone else for your block. Please read our guide to requesting an unblock and post another request. TNXMan 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Thank you for uploading File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - Contents - v. (1920).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

This is a book published in the United States in 1920. The copyright has expired. I own the book. I photocopied the page(s) and uploaded them. What else do you need to know? --Ludvikus (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The item in question is Page v, of the [Table of] Contents of this book. What is your problem? I really don't understand. It's a Public Domain book (the copyright having expired) and I'm providing one page (p. v) from the book's Table of Contents. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For your further information, this is an excerpted from the Second Edition of the extremely notorious book, which was published for the first time in the United States in book form in 1920 (both the 1st and 2nd editions of it were published in this year). The book is more generally known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

She's funny too: "Bad Sex": [22]. Maybe "Porochita" is her pen name (the name of her first lover. But he couldn't handle her real last name - which described his "Khak" as "pour"? Just kidding. I think she's a notable writer and the "stub" on her could use expansion (to make up for her disappointment as a fresh[wo]man at Sara Lawrence? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please unblock - I've learned my lessons very well during this long time.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Yes. Thanks for asking. I've been blocked indefinitely in 2009. The way to avoid it, for me, is to (1) spend as little time on Wikipedia as possible, and (2) let the other editor "win": probably leave a message on the other editor's Talk Page. It's really clear to me now that "collaboration," in my case, means ignoring disputes, and going on a self-imposed loooong vacation from Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Persistent disruption, and no sign of ever being able to edit collaboratively." The foregoing is the reason given for my unblock. I've discovered that an objective method for me to measure "disruption" can be gauged by me by measuring the amount of "bites" spent in disputes with other editors - including the time spent on Talk Pages. Therefore, I intend not spend any time disputing a point if there is any indication of "resistance" to my point on the part of another editor. I know now that if there are 10 editors who collaborate with me, but 1 who does not, it is the 1 that does not who will get the greater weight by me - because I have a record of "disruption." In order for me to work "collaboratively," I now must avoid every encounter of a "dispute" because it can most likely result in the conclusion that I'm "disruptive" because of my cumulative record of being judged previously of being "disruptive." An easy way out of such a situation is "to take a holiday" from Wikipedia. This is my "sign" of being able to work collaboratively. I understand that my "posting" will be responded to. And no response will mean collaborative acceptance of an edit. Please feel free to ask me any question, if this is deemed insufficient. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To the extent this makes any sense, it does not convince me that you understand the reason for your block. Sandstein 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

The latter is not Linked within the former article. Can someone supply the link please? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There is now much discussion of the relation between the Separation of Church and State in relation to Democracies. As it turns out, even France does not truly have 100% compliance with this principle. The omitted link to said agreement is therefore very important for anyone who wants to know how the French Republic handles the issue of Religion. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This 19th century mathematician is responsible for coining the word Polytope. He wrote the book, titled "Lehrbuch der analytischen geometrie. In zwei teilen." which is online in PDF format." --Ludvikus (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's also related to the other two above. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=I intend to spend not much time per week at Wikipedia if I'm unblocked, so there will be little chance of my being persistently disruptive. I hope this now makes "sense." I have no intention of being disruptive. I understand now that I must avoid all provocations. I also understand that even on non-content pages, too much discussion can be construed as disruption - especially if it consumes too much editors' time. | 3=On hold awaiting response from editor requesting unblock. --'''[[User:Selket|Selket]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Selket|Talk]]</sup> 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)}}

I count 7 previous blocks. Most recently (prior to the current indef block) you were blocked for 17 months. Within a few weeks of that being removed, you went back to the same old disruption. Can you please give us some indication that you understand what constitutes honest discussion and what constitutes disruption? Answers like, "I won't get into any discussions and I won't argue" miss the point, and are honestly not at all realistic. --SelketTalk 05:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. We've seen this before. This user might mean well, but he appears not to have the ability to work with other people in a non-disruptive way. There's nothing in this request that makes a plausible reason to think that has changed. -FisherQueen(talk · contribs) 16:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Last time I was blocked because of a dispute with only one editor, User:Loremaster, on talk pages. That dispute led to a recommendation that I be blocked - and I spent too much time defending/lawyering. That brought too much attention to myself. Too much time was spent by too may editors dealing with me, instead of Wikipedia articles. That's also considered "disruption" at Wikipedia. I now understand the meaning of "disruption" at Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk)

The most effective way to avoid the charge of "disruption' at Wikipedia is probably to give oneself a self-imposed 1-week holiday from Wikipedia when a dispute appears to arise. That's a policy I intend to impose upon myself, should I be reinstated. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidictionary defines "disruption" as "An interruption to the regular flow or sequence of something." Therefore, Wikipedia requires that an editor conform to the "regular flow" or "sequence" that pertain to Wikipedia. Therefore, "honest debate" and "disruption" are easily confused - one's "honesty" is precisely what can get one to be banned for disruption; a debate which results in a pattern that does not conform to practice at Wikipedia may result in a complaint of "disruption," no matter how "honest." The definition is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disruption. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the hold on your unblock. The arguments you have advanced to be unblocked have clearly failed to convince any administrators that unblocking you would be a good idea. Additionally, I am going to revoke your ability to edit this page. You appear to have been attempting to get other users to edit-by-proxy for you while blocked. Talk page access during a block is a courtesy extended solely for the purpose of discussing the block, nothing else. If you wish to appeal this block further you will need to email the Arbitration Committee as detailed at WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Beeblebrox Please could you remove the block on this page so that user:Ludvikus can respond to my proposals. Which if there is a consensus will result in an unblock.

Back in September 2009 I put some points to Ludvikus (User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 9#Some sugestions) his response showed that "he did not get it" and as far as I can tell he still does not get it. Clearly an indefinite ban is not going to rehabilitate him.

A problem with some Wikipedia articles

One of the self imposed projects I am currently working on is to update PD templates and then look at articles that those templates are used in to fix the citations in the articles so that the meet the attribution requirements of our Plagiarism guideline. For example I have replaced the template WaceBio with {{DCBL}}. But providing a template which allows more complete citations is only part of the problem. Many of these PD templates and articles were put into Wikipedia before WP:V was thought of or widely adopted and there are many articles copied from PD sources marked with {{refimprove}} which need citations added here are some example articles to which I have recently added in-line citations:

One and two are reasonably easy to cite but as you can see articles 3 and 4 are more difficult and took me well over an hour each. There are tens of thousands of these articles. For example see the hidden categories for EB1911|. An extreme example of of this type of problem is the Wikipedia article Abraxas. As the article stands it is claimed that there is text from 5 different PD sources, and writing from experience (but without checking) it seems to me the some of the inline citations are copied from a PD source in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. In fact it is probable that several of the PD sources are not used, and that they should be moved into a further reading section as ordinary entries without the attribution see for example {{Cite DCBL}}

It was a rewrite of {{Schaff-Herzog}} that brought me back to Abraxas. It was the first article that I looked at. There are another

205 Wikipedia articles for which the entry in Schaff-Herzog needs to be identified and the text in the Wikipeida article needs to have in-line citations to the copied text.

A solution and conditions

I have emailed user:Ludvikus, and have suggested that under my mentorship he could contribute constructively to the project in the area outlined above. He email me back indicating that he is interested in doing this, but we have not discussed the details.

I would suggest that user:Ludvikus work on a set of articles that use a particular PD template and the initial one would be {{Schaff-Herzog}}.

It is of course unlikely that Ludvikus will need to move articles and if he were to need to do so then I would insist that any such move went to WP:RM. He would be under a strict 0RR -- If any editor was to object to the edits he made he would have to revert them and inform me, so that we could discuss it further.

The advantage of this approach is that he is unlikely to be working on any articles in areas where he has had problems in the past. It will give him a chance to work cooperatively with other editors and over time (many months not many days) the restrictions can be gradually lifted at my discretion.

If at any time I think that there are any problems that require more detailed sanctions, then user:Ludvikus must intermediately agree to them abide by them, without any argument.

If during this mentorship problems arise that I think shows that user:Ludvikus is an irreconcilable, then I will reimpose the block indefinite and propose at WP:ANI that it is made permanent.

user:Ludvikus do you agree to terms and conditions unequivocally and unconditionally in their entirety? -- PBS (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points:

Bringing a user back from a long block solely to train them to help you with a task you assigned yourself is unprecedented as far as I know.

Your own confidence in the success of this plan seems quite low.

I think it would be best if you consult with the other admins who refused to unblock in the past before proceeding, I suggest notifying them all of this discussion

Ludvikus will also have to agree to stop his attempts to get others to edit by proxy for him if he wants even this talk page to remain open to him.

So, I have basically no faith that this will work and think it is a terrible idea from the ground up, but it's your time to waste if you want to, and I will soften the block to allow talk page editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not to "train" him to help me, it is to work n a limited area of the Wikipedia and in doing so to improve Wikipedidia and to learn how to co-operate with other editors. There are a number of editors who I know are blocked because the activly flout the communities rules in a persistent and deliberate way ie in bad faith. In my opinion Ludvikus's problems seem to have been disruption caused by an inability to understand why his actions were disruptive, not through deliberate bad faith actions. Hopefully if he agrees to my mentorship this is a way in which he can learn why his previous behaviour was disruptive and not repeat it. I will notify the administrators who have declined to unblock Ludvikus since this block was imposed. -- PBS (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) I certainly feel an obligation to editor Philip Baird Shearer - for proposing to go on a limb to be my mentor. Therefore, my obligation to him is now 100% not to get blocked if I get re-instated. (2) But this "proxy" business you (ed. Beeblebrox) now raised - I have no idea how you concluded that it looks like I tried to get others to act as "proxies" for me. I really don't have a good idea what you mean. So how can I rationally agree to your "proxy" constraint? The only editor I communicated with is Philip Baird Shearer - and he was not an editor who was on my side previously - quite the contrary. In fact, I am very pleasantly surprised that he has contact me (by email) to try to get me reinstated - if I agree to his terms; and I certainly do. (3) Since editor Philip Baird Shearer is the only editor I had any communication with, I cannot understand how that email communication has anything to do with "proxy" editing; quite the contrary, ed. PBS wants me to edit items he proposes, not want I choose to edit. (4) Specifically, ed. Beetlebrox, you said "You appear to have been attempting to get other users to edit-by-proxy for you while blocked." I don't know what that "appearance" of yours is - so how can you ask me to subscribe to such an impossible condition to obey?

Therefore, I do not know what you mean by "proxy" editing. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I just figured out what you meant: "Talk page access during a block is a courtesy extended solely for the purpose of discussing the block." That is a rule I was not aware of - until you announced it with a block to my Talk page. I've been writing on my talk page for years (during my block) - and no one complained. I'm not going to contradict you on this issue. And I'm not going to discuss anything but my block until such time as you rescind that position, or I'm un-blocked and informed by my proposed mentor as to what I can write on my talk page.

Therefore, since you say I may only use the Talk page to discuss my block - I certainly will not discuss anything else - until such time as you (ed. Bettlebrox) tell me otherwise. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So far, I have not found any WP rule here, which specifies that a blocked editor may only use a User's Talk Page to discuss his block during his block; neither did I find any rule here which says that using a User Talk Page to discuss WP article constitutes the "appearance" of using others as "proxies." Therefore, I should not have my User Talk Page blocked for a rule that is at least hard to find, and is not explicitly expressed on the WP Guideline regarding User Talk Page.

Nevertheless, I will not use my User Talk Page in a way which you, ed. Beetlebrox, now consider inappropriate (to discuss anything but my current Block). --Ludvikus (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you say, ed. Beetlebrox, that the rule you expressed (as a "courtesy"?) exists, don't you think it would be a good idea, for the benefit of Wikipedia, to include that rule which you used to block my "User Talk Page" on the WP:UP page as well? Or am I still not getting something? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear ed. Beetlebrox, I have not found any such restriction on the use of a User Talk Page here either; but I'm not going to violate the rule you announced - until you advise me otherwise. Best wishes, --Ludvikus (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC) "struck out." --Ludvikus (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ludvikus, VERBOSE MODE OFF! Better that you JUST answered my question with "I agree to abide with your terms and conditions" (or "I do not agree to abide with your terms and conditions"). If you had to ask about proxy editing (and you would have been better not doing so) then: "Beeblebrox, What is proxy editing?" would have been enough and when you found the answer yourself "OK. I just figured out what you meant: 'Talk page access during a block is a courtesy extended solely for the purpose of discussing the block.' That is a rule I was not aware of but I will keep to it in future". I suggest that you strike all your comment on this subject before someone else has to wade through it. As I have advised you before keep your answers 100 words or less (see Wikipedia:TPG#YES) and do not start a new section unless you initiate a conversation. These are both areas where your talk page style is disruptive . You are not helping your case! -- PBS (talk)

An example of how to strike out code:<s>text struck through</s> will look like this: text struck through -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is enough to convince me to oppose this unblock. This does not look like the work of a user who is committed to compromise or has shown the requisite level of WP:COMPETENCE needed to usefully edit here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(2) Adm. User:Beetlebrox: I understand the condition under which you've unblocked this User Talk Page, and I intend to comply with it completely. You said: "‎Re-allowing talk page access for purposes of discussing unblock only, any deviation from that purpose will result in rapid revocation of this ability." Perhaps it wasn't clear in the above, I therefore repeat my intent to comply with your restriction as expressed in the quotation. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not an admin, but having had to interact with him before I can definitely say that his behvior even in this very discussion shows that he hasn't changed one bit. Ashanda (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. I know Ludvikus has annoyed a lot of people, but he is not a bad person to work with. I was able to work with him - it was hard work at first, because he was suspicious of my motives - but once we had got past that, he worked collaboratively with me, making compromises. If he wanted me to, I would be willing to help mentor him.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a million. Any kind of "mentorship" you could provide, or be allowed to provide, would certainly be welcomed by me. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

[1] Can anyone explain to me the meaning of this in relation to the refusal of lifting my Block: [25]?--Ludvikus (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I am not an administrator but have been a frequent target of Ludvikus. Nothing that has appeared here indicates that any change has occurred. His most recent addition above shows him once again attacking those who disagree with him. And, as is not uncommon, he has made a sloppy and factually incorrect assumption -- he mixed up User:Beetlebrox, a banned user since 2009, with a current administrator in good standing User:Beeblebrox. He types first without thoroughly (or in this case even casually) examining the issues. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. But, you are right in thinking that Ludvikus needs take more time considering what he should say before he says it. Mentoring should help him there. Let's not be vindictive.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not accuse people of being vindictive. I am pointing out that even here, where common sense would dictate that Ludvikus be on his best behavior, he exhibits the same actions that have led to multiple blocks. What in the world was he doing that led to this mistake in the first place other than searching wikipedia to somehow discredit an administrator who he disagreed with? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently none of us spotted that in his post of [26] 19-20 April 2011 he typed a 't' where he should have typed a 'b', in User:Beeblebrox - and later wikilinking that is probably how he made the mistake.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point. Why was he researching the administrator, who hasn't posted anything here since April 19, in the first place? He continues to identify his problem not in terms of what he has done but in terms of what others have done to him. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! One look at this talk page's recent edit history makes it clear that nothing has changed. Despite having basically been told to sit down and be quiet while we discuss this, he nevertheless endlessly refactors the page and alternately plays the victim and the bully. If he can't behave himself in this context where he knows quite well he's being closely scrutinized by several people, how can we expect any better behavior when he's only got one Mentor keeping a close eye on him. Ashanda (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it seems we now have two (myself and with help from Toddy1). If you look above, my intention is to keep Ludvikus restricted to specific areas for the time being. The problem we have here is that either we say he is incorrigible and that he never edits Wikipedia again, or we allow him limited interaction in areas far away from where he has previously caused problems doing tasks that need doing for the betterment of the encyclopaedia, with the intention of allowing him to lean how to interact with other editors in a controlled and responsible manner. -- PBS (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Quite frankly I don't have a problem with a scenario of him finding other things to do besides editing Wikipedia. Considering his behavior here and now on a single page with many watching, I believe this mentorship plan would wind up being disruptive to the project. There will be an inevitable amount of lag time between his edits and his mentors reviewing them, a lot of disruption can happen during that period. I can honestly say that I believe the project is better off without him than with him. I'm sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings, but that is my firm opinion. It would also probably be better for him if he moved on with his life rather than again getting involved with all the drama and ill will that seems to follow him around here. Ashanda (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose it will come as any great surprise that I see ill-reasoned attack on my character as further evidence that this is not a person who is ever going to be able to be able to contribute positively here. I could see making the first simple spelling mistake with my name, that's a perfectly understandable error. To not reconsider and re-examine the matter when it appeared that an administrator was somehow a user with a total of one undeleted edit from 2009 who was identified as a sockpuppet of one of the most notorious wiki-trolls ever shows once a lack of competence and a tendency to focus on blaming others for his own problems. I suggest that WP:OFFER be put on the table as a last resort option. If Ludvikus can manage to not request unblock here again for 4-6 months and can contribute to another Wikimedia project such as commons or simple in a productive manner that wold go a very long way towards showing he is in fact capable enough to edit in an environment like this. Given the level of debate here I do not believe an unblock could be warranted at this time without going to ANI for more input. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Talk page access during a block is a courtesy extended solely for the purpose of discussing the block, nothing else." That's a rule I was not aware of - until after you blocked this talk page for the appearance of its violation. And that's why I confused you with User:Beetlebrox. I never "editing-by-proxy." And as you can see, I've obeyed your interpretation herein 100% - after you informed me of it. I understand that "editing-by-proxy" is called Wikipedia:sockpuppetry.

I still could not find this rule anywhere else except in your announcement at the top of this Talk Page; I would appreciate it very much - your "mentoring" me - by citing exactly where at WP it can be found.

Once more, I apologize to you for my spelling mistake - which no one corrected - until after - in good faith - I believed that you were in fact User:Beetlebrox (someone who is Blocked because of his "edits-by-proxy"). --Ludvikus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How to avoid future WP Disruption[s]. I believe one useful rule I've discovered (for myself) - is that it's better to wait weeks, rather than days, or hours, to figure out what the consensus is on an issue at WP. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My previous dispute with Tom (North Shoreman) was resolved by Administrator PBS under terms with which I've complied with 100%. I believe that because I respected those previous restrictions, that PBS has now kindly offered to Mentor me - as someone who was not intentionally disruptive. I certainly would not want to tarnish his good WP name by once again being Blocked from WP if I were un-Blocked now; he was not an administrator who thought well of my "disruptive" editing; nevertheless, he has, on his own initiative volunteered to Mentor me now. Therefore, I have tremendous respect for him as a Wikipedian Adm. - and nothing would give me more pleasure, at WP, than to prove his faith in my potential to be a WP:Competent editor. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

UserAshanda(talk) surprises me extremely - since at the end of our inter-action on editing WP I awarded Ashanda a Barnstar of Diligence in recognition by me of this editor's good work:[27]. I still have no idea what I did to this editor which warrants such claims of ineptitude against my WP Competence. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Toddy1 (talk) was an editor with whom I had WP content-disputes when we first encountered one another at WP; but we worked things out. So now I'm extremely appreciative of his support, and faith in my ability to become a Competent - Non-Disruptive WP editor. I therefor am extremely motivated not to disappoint him, or tarnish his WP-reputation, by being Blocked again in spite of his Mentoring. It is he who awarded me a Barnstar on my WP home page - and it is still there: [28] --Ludvikus (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be putting an interesting spin on your dealings with me. In fact, on September 26, 2009 -- JUST FIVE DAYS AFTER YOU WERE RELEASED FROM A 16 MONTH BLOCK --you were restricted by PBS from editing pages dealing with historical revisionism -- a subject I was editing and the subject that led to your 16 month block. A little over a month from this restriction (October 30) your current block for "persistent disruption" was imposed. You really miss the point when you claim that you "complied with [the restriction] 100%" when what you actually did was simply move your disruptive behavior from one set of articles to another. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes NS you are correct. I have suggested in the past the Ludvikus voluntarily, did not edit any of the pages he had previously edited, but when he was unbocked last time he went back to his old haunts and was soon in trouble again. My suggestion for mentorship this time is to keep a firm tether on his areas of access, and the type of access he has, to see if we can teach him to modify his behaviour. If mentorship and a limited access is still too liberal, then we are not talking of a indefinite ban but a permanent block. Has his past behaviour, and his behaviour during this discussion, justified that? -- PBS (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked, I certainly do believe he has earned a permanent ban. I don't believe you, or anybody else, has the necessary tools in a strictly online relationship to modify behavior that I have to believe goes well beyond the manifestations demonstrated on wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose lift/mentorship. Per those who have opposed it above. I believe continuation of his indef ban -- and indeed, a permanent ban -- is warranted given his past behavior, and his behavior in this discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose also - I looked over the archives of WP:ANI as a refresher of the misbehavior from this editor, and what a headache. That, combined with the extensive block log, and compounded by the misbehavior even now when an unblock is being requested, makes me very uneasy with allowing his editing privileges to be restored. -- Atama頭 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, my current ban/block was the result of "disruptive" disputes with primarily one user, User:Loremaster, on a controverial set of articles, particularly New World Order (conspiracy theory). There's no way possible, I believe, I would repeat those mistakes. But that had nothing to do with my prior dispute with editor User:North Shoreman. What I've learned since is that even a civil discussion by me on a Talk Page can be construed as "disruption." I also understand how at each new incident administrators add up all previous bans. What happened with User:Loremaster had nothing to do with User:North Shoreman.

I also understand - but its probably too late now - that even attempting to prove that one has learned one's lessons - merely causes a "headache," and a reason to be banned or blocked forever; I understand that now - but it's probably too late - that the only response at Wikipedia - is "no response." I should have said NOTHING when PBS offered to mentor me but "I accept." --Ludvikus (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

At least in this case that would have been a good idea, yeah. I'm a believer that people can change (I myself am not quite as clueless as I was when I started editing Wikipedia) but I don't see how you've changed. -- Atama頭 21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. He is still the same person who caused so much trouble, with the same abilities and flaws. I think this is one of those cases where the problem is not one of practice, guidance, or information, but of character. People do, occasionally, through hard work or sudden epiphany, change their characters, but I'm not seeing any reason to think that this has happened to Ludvikus. -FisherQueen(talk · contribs) 22:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To reply to your reply to my previous post:

I'm not sure it explicitly says anywhere that the talk page is not to be used in the manner you were attempting to use it, but trying to get someone to edit on your behalf while you are blocked is an obvious violation of WP:MEAT. Your fixation on this point is something I see as further evidence that you have an attitude that is incompatible with editing here.

That you believed "in good faith" that I was a sockpuppet of a banned user shows a complete lack of critical thinking before charging ahead with obviously deeply flawed accusations. The fact that you apparently did not understand my attempt to explain that is yet more evidence of the same problem.

At this point there is an emerging consensus that you not be unblocked at this time, possibly not ever. Are you willing to consider the offer I outlined in my previous post?

Groan. You are already making me regret extending the offer with that nonsensical statement. The fact that you can't see that it is nonsense speaks volumes. Let us know when you've managed to contribute elsewhere for several months without causing the sort of problems you have here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that at this time and for at least the next six months that there is no consensus for the Ludvikus account to be unblocked even under the supervision of a mentor. -- PBS (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ludvikus please keep in mind what Beeblebrox has stipulated and use this page for requesting unblocks and nothing else. -- PBS (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)